As a Latter-day Saint, I don’t see anything necessarily wrong by exclusivity — and by that I mean there’s nothing wrong with the concept that there’s a single church with administrators called and ordained with divine authority. Where I find a major problem is when a single faith deviates into the concept, doctrine or creed that exclusivity carries with it exclusive rights to salvation.
I do not wish to debate the relative merits of Mormonism, but to me it makes sense that for administrative and doctrinal purposes, there should be a chain of authority from On High. But it must be countered with the recognition that we are all the children of God, and that we are here for a purpose — not to carry upon our shoulders the sin of Adam and Eve. And being apt to make mistakes and errors of judgment, choosing the wrong religion should not result in expulsion into hell (which most Christians believe is eternal, everlasting fire, which burns but never consumes).
Studying these religions has become a hobby of mine. Whether it’s the churches of Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Church of God, Philadelphia Church of God, the Restored Church of God, Evangelical Christians, Catholicism or you name it, those who fail to enter in by their door or tread the path that they dictate are doomed to fire or annihilation.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has tenuous claims to exclusivity to begin with, but its fatal flaw is that it’s a society, not a church — and the New Testament is unmistakably clear that Jesus established an actual church with apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, deacons, elders, bishops, priests and so forth, with spiritual gifts such as prophecy and revelation. Yet what does the Society provide? Not a church. In fact, one can be disfellowshiped for reading a church’s pamphlets or worshipping in its buildings; yet read the New Testament and look how often the Church of Jesus Christ (not Jehovah) is mentioned. “For upon this rock I will build my church,” he told Peter, “and the gates of [death] shall not prevail against it.”
So that’s the reason the Society neither ordains its elders or members, nor its chief executives. It would be meaningless and would be lacking in divine authority. Perhaps they realize that behind the smoke and mirrors, they would be reaching for something it had no legitimate claim to.
In my view, there should be an exclusive authority upon the earth — like I said, a chain of authority. For several months I debated a Catholic friend who wanted to enter the priesthood. He was fascinated with the various Marian apparitions which were occurring throughout the world. It was evidence of God speaking, he said, and that was thrilling after so many centuries. But if the Pope was God’s representative on Earth, I countered, why wouldn’t Mary be speaking to him rather than these peasant girls? Why should the Pope be pouring over these visions and mysteries and trying to determine whether they’re of God or not when he’s the one appointed to issue infallible declarations and edicts?
When there’s a “body” of believers that constitute one true church, how does God expect to get the word out? If he called a prophet among this body of believers, can you imagine how he would be received? He goes to the Methodists, Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Amish and evangelicals, how would this prophet ever gain credibility? So exclusivity can be a good thing — even a necessary thing — if God is going to speak to man. But if it’s going to claim Heaven to the exclusion of everyone else, it will debase God’s Love, his Fatherhood and his Justice. People are imperfect and, in a diverse world, to hold them to such an awesome responsibility to judge perfectly (or else) would be the height of injustice. The scriptures state that ultimately “every knee shall bend and every tongue confess Christ,” including those of atheists. To what end would it be to then just blow them out of existence?
[Background: In the June issue of The Watchtower 2004, two articles addressed the issue. The first article was “Should You Belong to a Church?” The followup article was entitled, “Which Religion Should You Join?” Since we know what the answer will be, notice the subtle...very subtle...switcheroo. It’s not which church you should join, but what religion should you join? Why didn’t the editors use the word church in the second article? Because the WTBTS is not a church. If I were an article JW, I’d want to know why, if Jesus had a church, there’s no church today. And if there is a church, why doesn’t it have priests? Also, why, if the Society has compared the Governing Body with the ancient apostles (which means “sent ones”), who received guidance from the Holy Spirit, why members of the Governing Body don’t share that term? They don’t even claim to be the same office, just using a different term. They do, however, equate themselves with the apostle John class. As the Navy has a primary ship class, like the Arleigh Burke class, which is the first of other ships just like it but with different hull numbers, the John class of leaders are just more, later, versions of John. In the second article, the writers compare the leadership of the Society with the ancient prophets and apostles. Yet, strangely, no one has ever called them, or ordained them, to prophetic offices. And instead of building on previous leaders and their once-inspired writings, they seem to pave over them with new light...er...new asphalt.]